The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around November 2014, the Defendant, as the operator of the Co., Ltd. B, concluded that “The Defendant set the unit price for the supply of the working parts at the end of the following month to lower the unit price for the supply of the working parts in cash at the end of the following month” with the victim C representative director D.

However, in fact, the Defendant was liable to pay KRW 2.5 billion to business partners, financial institutions, and on November 13, 2014, sold the building and land of a factory under B’s name to E Co., Ltd., and did not pay rent from May 2015 when he leased and used the building and land of the above factory, and even if there was a profit from the work that was made from the above factory, it was thought that the Defendant would not have any intention or ability to pay the price for the goods to the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received goods equivalent to KRW 4.8 million from the victim on March 6, 2015, and received from the victim on delivery, as well as received from June 12, 2015, a total of KRW 179,962,00 from the time to June 12, 2015 as indicated in the separate crime list.

2. Determination

A. The same applies to the determination of the criminal intent of fraud based on the outcome of a transaction conducted in the course of carrying out the project, where a part of fraud against the corporate manager is at issue, and the part of fraud against the corporate manager is at issue, only if the corporate body was at the time of the transaction at the time of the transaction, and it was foreseeable that the corporate body would be able to be able to be able to go bankrupt according to the circumstances.

Therefore, even if the company manager was able to recognize the possibility of nonperformance under the Bankruptcy Act, it should not be determined that there was an intention of fraud in the event of the intent to make efforts to perform the contract.